Aa
US readies possible solo action against Syria
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama on Thursday prepared for the possibility of launching unilateral American military action against Syria within days as Britain opted out in a stunning vote by Parliament. Facing skepticism at home, too, the administration shared intelligence with lawmakers aimed at convincing them the Syrian government used chemical weapons against its people and must be punished.
Despite roadblocks in forming an international coalition, Obama appeared undeterred and advisers said he would be willing to retaliate against Syria on his own.
“The president of the United States is elected with the duty to protect the national security interests in the United States of America,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest said.
Even before the vote in London, the U.S. was preparing to act without formal authorization from the United Nations, where Russia has blocked efforts to seek a resolution authorizing the use of force, or from Capitol Hill. But the U.S. had expected Britain, a major ally, to join in the effort.
Top U.S. officials spoke with certain lawmakers for more than 90 minutes in a teleconference Thursday evening to explain why they believe Bashar Assad’s government was the culprit in a suspected chemical attack last week. Lawmakers from both parties have been pressing Obama to provide a legal rationale for military action and specify objectives, as well as to lay out a firm case linking Assad to the attack.
A number of lawmakers raised questions in the briefing about how the administration would finance a military operation as the Pentagon is grappling with automatic spending cuts and reduced budgets.
Sen. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee and a participant on the call, said in a statement that the administration presented a “broad range of options” for dealing with Syria but failed to offer a single plan, timeline, strategy or explanation of how it would pay for any military operation.
Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon, R-Calif., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and a call participant, told reporters that administration officials are in the process of declassifying the evidence they have of the Syrian government using chemical weapons.
“When they do that, we’ll understand. But it’s up to the president of the United States to present his case, to sell this to the American public. They’re very war weary. We’ve been at war now for over 10 years,” McKeon told reporters at a post-call news conference at his office in Valencia, Calif.
It remained to be seen whether any skeptics were swayed by the call, given the expectation in advance that officials would hold back classified information to protect intelligence sources and methods.
“The main thing was that they have no doubt that Assad’s forces used chemical weapons,” New York Rep. Eliot Engel, top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and a supporter of Obama’s course, said after the briefing.
But he said the officials did not provide much new evidence of that.
“They said they have (intercepted) some discussions and some indications from a high-level official,” he said, and that they possess intelligence showing material being moved in advance of the attack.
He called the tone “respectful. There was no shouting. No one was accusing the administration of doing anything wrong.”
Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said the briefing “reaffirmed for me that a decisive and consequential U.S. response is justified and warranted to protect Syrians, as well as to send a global message that chemical weapons attacks in violation of international law will not stand.”
In London, Prime Minister David Cameron argued a military strike would be legal on humanitarian grounds. But he faced deep pressure from lawmakers and had already promised not to undertake military action until a U.N. chemical weapons team on the ground in Syria released its findings about the Aug. 21 attack.
The prime minister said in terse comments after the vote that while he believes in a “tough response” to the use of chemical weapons, he would respect the will of the House of Commons.
Caitlin Hayden, Obama’s National Security Council spokeswoman, said the U.S. would continue to consult with Britain but Obama would make decisions based on “the best interests of the United States.”
Despite roadblocks in forming an international coalition, Obama appeared undeterred and advisers said he would be willing to retaliate against Syria on his own.
“The president of the United States is elected with the duty to protect the national security interests in the United States of America,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest said.
Even before the vote in London, the U.S. was preparing to act without formal authorization from the United Nations, where Russia has blocked efforts to seek a resolution authorizing the use of force, or from Capitol Hill. But the U.S. had expected Britain, a major ally, to join in the effort.
Top U.S. officials spoke with certain lawmakers for more than 90 minutes in a teleconference Thursday evening to explain why they believe Bashar Assad’s government was the culprit in a suspected chemical attack last week. Lawmakers from both parties have been pressing Obama to provide a legal rationale for military action and specify objectives, as well as to lay out a firm case linking Assad to the attack.
A number of lawmakers raised questions in the briefing about how the administration would finance a military operation as the Pentagon is grappling with automatic spending cuts and reduced budgets.
Sen. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee and a participant on the call, said in a statement that the administration presented a “broad range of options” for dealing with Syria but failed to offer a single plan, timeline, strategy or explanation of how it would pay for any military operation.
Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon, R-Calif., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and a call participant, told reporters that administration officials are in the process of declassifying the evidence they have of the Syrian government using chemical weapons.
“When they do that, we’ll understand. But it’s up to the president of the United States to present his case, to sell this to the American public. They’re very war weary. We’ve been at war now for over 10 years,” McKeon told reporters at a post-call news conference at his office in Valencia, Calif.
It remained to be seen whether any skeptics were swayed by the call, given the expectation in advance that officials would hold back classified information to protect intelligence sources and methods.
“The main thing was that they have no doubt that Assad’s forces used chemical weapons,” New York Rep. Eliot Engel, top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and a supporter of Obama’s course, said after the briefing.
But he said the officials did not provide much new evidence of that.
“They said they have (intercepted) some discussions and some indications from a high-level official,” he said, and that they possess intelligence showing material being moved in advance of the attack.
He called the tone “respectful. There was no shouting. No one was accusing the administration of doing anything wrong.”
Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said the briefing “reaffirmed for me that a decisive and consequential U.S. response is justified and warranted to protect Syrians, as well as to send a global message that chemical weapons attacks in violation of international law will not stand.”
In London, Prime Minister David Cameron argued a military strike would be legal on humanitarian grounds. But he faced deep pressure from lawmakers and had already promised not to undertake military action until a U.N. chemical weapons team on the ground in Syria released its findings about the Aug. 21 attack.
The prime minister said in terse comments after the vote that while he believes in a “tough response” to the use of chemical weapons, he would respect the will of the House of Commons.
Caitlin Hayden, Obama’s National Security Council spokeswoman, said the U.S. would continue to consult with Britain but Obama would make decisions based on “the best interests of the United States.”
Love these debates, love the idea of being the worlds super hero.
Hate the lose of innocent lives, by bullet or chemical weapons, makes no difference. Enough is enough.
But we can not go with a limited strike, you want to talk all big and bad, then lets do this!!!! But drop the mis and dis information.
Of course I believe in the ideals that this country was formed upon, and yet they seem to fade away more and more.
As I read Revelation, I have looked for any reference to a super power from the west saving the world, I see none.
Hate the lose of innocent lives, by bullet or chemical weapons, makes no difference. Enough is enough.
But we can not go with a limited strike, you want to talk all big and bad, then lets do this!!!! But drop the mis and dis information.
Of course I believe in the ideals that this country was formed upon, and yet they seem to fade away more and more.
As I read Revelation, I have looked for any reference to a super power from the west saving the world, I see none.
I was watching two politicians debate this issue. One dem, one republican. I honestly couldn't even tell you who was in which camp, but I can say this. It was disgusting. They kept making it about politics - either trying to make Obama look bad, or trying to make him look good. The whole debate was about that. How on earth do you trust the politico's making this decision. I don't think they care a whit about what's happening, it's all about garnering votes and making their party look better then the other. In other words, they are using this issue for power. I am now more certain then ever I do not want my country to follow this time. I am make to absolutely not trusting motives or anything that comes out of their mouths. Please don't be insulted - the American people are wonderful and I truly do love and respect your country and the people that live there. But I sure as heck would not be ok with my country backing politicians who I think are only even voting for or against to increase their own political power. Sorry, but it's not worth the risk.
Hussein gassed, what was it... 5,000 Kurds?
Sadly this feels like a re-play to me. Remember the Weapons of Mass Destruction that weren't there ? How do we know what really happened in Syria ? How can we trust the powers in DC when they continually lie to us ??
BTW: DId you ever watch the movie, ' Wag the Dog' ?
BTW: DId you ever watch the movie, ' Wag the Dog' ?
Me too, I feel exactly the same way.
I don't think it is corporate greed this time.
I really believe that for some reason that I'm not aware of, those who are advocating for this war believe we have to do it.
I'm trying to trust. I am with the American people that do not want to go to war. But am trying to trust that people that know things I don't have good reasons for trying to force it.
Just hope they aren't wrong.
I really believe that for some reason that I'm not aware of, those who are advocating for this war believe we have to do it.
I'm trying to trust. I am with the American people that do not want to go to war. But am trying to trust that people that know things I don't have good reasons for trying to force it.
Just hope they aren't wrong.
Every poll I've seen says the vast majority of Americans are opposed to going to war with Syria.
These warmongers in DC are not doing what they are supposed to do~ represent the American people.
They have forgotten who they are working for, oops I forgot, they are working for the corporations who make bundles off of the military industrial complex. Silly me thinking they work for us.
These warmongers in DC are not doing what they are supposed to do~ represent the American people.
They have forgotten who they are working for, oops I forgot, they are working for the corporations who make bundles off of the military industrial complex. Silly me thinking they work for us.
Not far-fetched at all. In fact all the indicators show it already happening and fixing to get much worse much quicker than even the pessimists are predicting.
http://billmoyers.com/2013/09/06/drought-helped-spark-syrias-civil-war-is-it-the-first-of-many-climate-wars-to-come/
This is an interesting theory about the Syrian civil war.
It may seem far-fetched but anyone who has even a little background in history knows that humans often show their worst in difficult times.
I know I find myself a lot more tolerant of others when my needs are met.
This is an interesting theory about the Syrian civil war.
It may seem far-fetched but anyone who has even a little background in history knows that humans often show their worst in difficult times.
I know I find myself a lot more tolerant of others when my needs are met.
Another old document that seems to have been forgotten.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
I really like your post. You were so spot on.
Thanks Pro.
Thanks Pro.
More good news... who truly has more allies.
http://news.yahoo.com/syria-says-not-even-wwiii-132720747.html
http://news.yahoo.com/syria-says-not-even-wwiii-132720747.html
That's an interesting read Proactive, and there is really nothing there I can even begin to debate with you. I too question the lack of action from the UN in many regards. As you say, there have been countless horrific acts in the world in the last 10 years without any response. And i don't even pretend to have any understanding of how the UN functions.
Ok, so here is where I personally am at. Clearly something has to happen. However, I go full circle in questioning whether it is possible to effect any change there without a full scale invasion. I guess I really don't believe it can happen. What would an air strike only accomplish? Will more innocent lives be taken as a result? Will it escalate things? And again, should the US go it alone? I don't believe it will end at air strikes, especially if Iran jumps into the fray. You all make great arguments, and as always i read and learn. But God help me, I am still terrified of what this will lead to. I really am. I feel like the entire Middle East is on the brink of explosion, and all it will take is the right catalyst. Again, this is why I feel strongly this needs to be a coalition and I'm not sure I will change my opinion on that.
Ok, so here is where I personally am at. Clearly something has to happen. However, I go full circle in questioning whether it is possible to effect any change there without a full scale invasion. I guess I really don't believe it can happen. What would an air strike only accomplish? Will more innocent lives be taken as a result? Will it escalate things? And again, should the US go it alone? I don't believe it will end at air strikes, especially if Iran jumps into the fray. You all make great arguments, and as always i read and learn. But God help me, I am still terrified of what this will lead to. I really am. I feel like the entire Middle East is on the brink of explosion, and all it will take is the right catalyst. Again, this is why I feel strongly this needs to be a coalition and I'm not sure I will change my opinion on that.
I do appreciate your Canadian opinion adgal.
Thought I'd copy and paste this post made by someone I discuss stocks with, he's from Australia, so again from a different prospective.
(it's my opinion we will eventually see the UN come around and get involved--as they should!)
"I’m writing this because I’m so incensed and disgusted with, for one thing, that Grossly Ineffective organization that goes by the name of the United Nations.
To a large extent, and IMO, they are, currently, a bunch of spineless, fat cat layabouts who operate in their privileged enclave with absolutely little or no regard for the VALUE OF HUMAN LIFE.
The world has seen so many occasions, of late, where hundreds, if not thousands, of innocent men, women and, most tragic of all, young children have been brutally killed by the barbaric acts of despots and regimes.
And what does the United Nations do …?
They sit there and talk and debate and discuss, for weeks and weeks and months and months on end. And at the end of the day, what do they generally achieve .... ? NOTHING, ....
.... while more and more innocent people continue to suffer untold misery and often death.
The United Nations was spawned from the original League of Nations and both came about as a result of two horrific World Wars.
Sensible men and women agreed that they did not want the world to go through another near-Armageddon.
These same individuals put together the Charter by which member Nations agreed to abide …. (strange as that may sound in the world of today !!).
One of the collaborative authors of both the League of Nation’s and United Nation’s Charters was an eminent South African, Jan Christian Smuts.
He was the only one to have co-authored both Charters.
But be that as it may, what is far more important than those brief historical facts are what the current Charter states …..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED
to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and
to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and
to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
AND FOR THESE ENDS
to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and
to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and
to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and
to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,
HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS
Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, .... having ALL agreed to live and work according to those codes, then WHY THE #&(#@ DON’T THEY ???
Amongst other things, we read there .... ” ... to reaffirm faith ..... in the dignity and WORTH of the human person”
So my PRIME and ULTIMATE Question is ....
WHAT VALUE DOES THE OVERALL MEMBERSHIP OF THE UNITED NATIONS PUT TO HUMAN LIVES ??
In recent times the VALUE put to oil reserves, and such like, is way above the VALUE put to the lives of innocent women and children.
The latest human catastrophe is in SYRIA.
That catastrophe didn’t start yesterday. It’s been ongoing for SEVERAL YEARS, for God’s sake.
And, Yes, no individual country should be expected to “put boots on the ground” or to get personally involved in the conflict on one side or the other.
However, IM(humble)O, I would have thought that many, many months, if not years, ago, before the Human carnage reached epidemic proportions, that those Members of the United Nations, who have the necessary wherewithal and capability, should have got together as A COMBINED UNIT, under the banner of the United Nations, and moved into Syria and placed their substantial military force, with peaceful but clear and unambiguous intent, BETWEEN those who had death and destruction on their minds ... IRRESPECTIVE of which side of the political spectrum the Syrian incumbents belonged.
It is ONLY NOW, when there’s been the use of outlawed Chemical Weapons, by ‘whoever’, that the United Nations has, to some extent, got off their rear ends and started to be pro-active.
But why did it have to take up until now ???
Can the “civilised” world only act if there’s been some breach of “International Law” ??
I suggest you tell that to the mothers and fathers or brothers and sisters of those who have had loved ones brutally killed by bullets, or bombs, or under collapsed buildings, IRRESPECTIVE OF WHO CAUSED IT.
Does it really matter how a loved one dies ???
When you’re killed, you’re killed ... when you’re dead, you’re dead ... end of story.
Bullet, bomb, chemical weapon, what’s the difference ??
ALL parties in Syria should then have been informed that ANY FURTHER KILLING WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED OR TOLERATED.
The innocent women and children, who cannot protect themselves from bullying despots and mindless regimes, need powerful allies in their corner.
If the Syrians want to be a part of a DEMOCRATIC WORLD then they would have to behave according to DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES and put forward their candidates for a DEMOCRATIC and suitably protected and supervised ELECTION.
The OUTCOME of that election would be accepted and monitored going forward.
ANY ABUSE OF POWER by the elected officials, ESPECIALLY IF IT LEAD TO THE UNNECESSARY LOSS OF HUMAN LIFE, would also NOT BE TOLERATED, and the current and 'united' UNITED NATIONS body would, ONCE AGAIN, MOVE IN and repeat the process ....
.... UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE OVERALL SYRIAN POPULATION GOT THE MESSAGE THAT THERE IS A SUITABLE AND ACCEPTED WAY THAT CIVILIZED HUMAN BEINGS SHOULD BEHAVE TOWARDS EACH OTHER, AND THAT THE UNNECESSARY KILLING OF FELLOW HUMAN BEINGS WILL NOT BE TOLERATED BY THE REST OF HUMANITY ..... EVER !! .....
..... (As is, apparently, alluded to in the United Nations charter of that United Nations body to which most of the ‘civilized’ world belongs, and to which they are presumed to adhere)
Sorry folks, but I had to get that off my chest .... and I thought that my own board was a place I could do just that"
Thought I'd copy and paste this post made by someone I discuss stocks with, he's from Australia, so again from a different prospective.
(it's my opinion we will eventually see the UN come around and get involved--as they should!)
"I’m writing this because I’m so incensed and disgusted with, for one thing, that Grossly Ineffective organization that goes by the name of the United Nations.
To a large extent, and IMO, they are, currently, a bunch of spineless, fat cat layabouts who operate in their privileged enclave with absolutely little or no regard for the VALUE OF HUMAN LIFE.
The world has seen so many occasions, of late, where hundreds, if not thousands, of innocent men, women and, most tragic of all, young children have been brutally killed by the barbaric acts of despots and regimes.
And what does the United Nations do …?
They sit there and talk and debate and discuss, for weeks and weeks and months and months on end. And at the end of the day, what do they generally achieve .... ? NOTHING, ....
.... while more and more innocent people continue to suffer untold misery and often death.
The United Nations was spawned from the original League of Nations and both came about as a result of two horrific World Wars.
Sensible men and women agreed that they did not want the world to go through another near-Armageddon.
These same individuals put together the Charter by which member Nations agreed to abide …. (strange as that may sound in the world of today !!).
One of the collaborative authors of both the League of Nation’s and United Nation’s Charters was an eminent South African, Jan Christian Smuts.
He was the only one to have co-authored both Charters.
But be that as it may, what is far more important than those brief historical facts are what the current Charter states …..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED
to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and
to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and
to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
AND FOR THESE ENDS
to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and
to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and
to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and
to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,
HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS
Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, .... having ALL agreed to live and work according to those codes, then WHY THE #&(#@ DON’T THEY ???
Amongst other things, we read there .... ” ... to reaffirm faith ..... in the dignity and WORTH of the human person”
So my PRIME and ULTIMATE Question is ....
WHAT VALUE DOES THE OVERALL MEMBERSHIP OF THE UNITED NATIONS PUT TO HUMAN LIVES ??
In recent times the VALUE put to oil reserves, and such like, is way above the VALUE put to the lives of innocent women and children.
The latest human catastrophe is in SYRIA.
That catastrophe didn’t start yesterday. It’s been ongoing for SEVERAL YEARS, for God’s sake.
And, Yes, no individual country should be expected to “put boots on the ground” or to get personally involved in the conflict on one side or the other.
However, IM(humble)O, I would have thought that many, many months, if not years, ago, before the Human carnage reached epidemic proportions, that those Members of the United Nations, who have the necessary wherewithal and capability, should have got together as A COMBINED UNIT, under the banner of the United Nations, and moved into Syria and placed their substantial military force, with peaceful but clear and unambiguous intent, BETWEEN those who had death and destruction on their minds ... IRRESPECTIVE of which side of the political spectrum the Syrian incumbents belonged.
It is ONLY NOW, when there’s been the use of outlawed Chemical Weapons, by ‘whoever’, that the United Nations has, to some extent, got off their rear ends and started to be pro-active.
But why did it have to take up until now ???
Can the “civilised” world only act if there’s been some breach of “International Law” ??
I suggest you tell that to the mothers and fathers or brothers and sisters of those who have had loved ones brutally killed by bullets, or bombs, or under collapsed buildings, IRRESPECTIVE OF WHO CAUSED IT.
Does it really matter how a loved one dies ???
When you’re killed, you’re killed ... when you’re dead, you’re dead ... end of story.
Bullet, bomb, chemical weapon, what’s the difference ??
ALL parties in Syria should then have been informed that ANY FURTHER KILLING WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED OR TOLERATED.
The innocent women and children, who cannot protect themselves from bullying despots and mindless regimes, need powerful allies in their corner.
If the Syrians want to be a part of a DEMOCRATIC WORLD then they would have to behave according to DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES and put forward their candidates for a DEMOCRATIC and suitably protected and supervised ELECTION.
The OUTCOME of that election would be accepted and monitored going forward.
ANY ABUSE OF POWER by the elected officials, ESPECIALLY IF IT LEAD TO THE UNNECESSARY LOSS OF HUMAN LIFE, would also NOT BE TOLERATED, and the current and 'united' UNITED NATIONS body would, ONCE AGAIN, MOVE IN and repeat the process ....
.... UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE OVERALL SYRIAN POPULATION GOT THE MESSAGE THAT THERE IS A SUITABLE AND ACCEPTED WAY THAT CIVILIZED HUMAN BEINGS SHOULD BEHAVE TOWARDS EACH OTHER, AND THAT THE UNNECESSARY KILLING OF FELLOW HUMAN BEINGS WILL NOT BE TOLERATED BY THE REST OF HUMANITY ..... EVER !! .....
..... (As is, apparently, alluded to in the United Nations charter of that United Nations body to which most of the ‘civilized’ world belongs, and to which they are presumed to adhere)
Sorry folks, but I had to get that off my chest .... and I thought that my own board was a place I could do just that"
"Assad has done what he did, despite the warning from the US. And that is why I worry about the US moving too quickly, without UN support and as part of a coalition. Your military has to be weakened after 10 years in Iraq and Afghanistan. And public support also doesn't seem to be there with the US population (maybe I'm wrong?) Can the US engage Syria and Iran on it's own? Now, no question that if Iran got involved you would see increased support for the US from other countries, but how long does it take to get organized? See what I am saying. That is part of why I think slowing down and increasing pressure on the UN, plus handing Russia undisputable proof (it must exist) that this was Assad. Russia wouldn't have any option but to sanction this. "
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think this board is fairly representative of how the American people feel. Most are vociferously against a war. A few people are considering air strikes as something they might support.
It really is so hard. Sooo much can go wrong and some things are fatal mistakes.
The U.N is currently defunct we cannot get any help from them.
I think your conspiracy theory is good, but for me it works differently. I think Iran wants Syria to be the one who truly causes us to be friendless so when they have their turn we will be further weakened. So they are letting this play out. At first opportunity they will be there in the mix. But I really don't get why the Arab league of nations are not up in arms...they do not like him at all. My thought is they too, are watching it play out. Why? Maybe we pose a greater threat to them and their values. They *do* detest the West. We will not only be the aggressors we will have lost credibility with much of the world. With our economy and divisiveness, we will be at our weakest, as a nation.
@brice You are right, there will be serious detractors anyway.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think this board is fairly representative of how the American people feel. Most are vociferously against a war. A few people are considering air strikes as something they might support.
It really is so hard. Sooo much can go wrong and some things are fatal mistakes.
The U.N is currently defunct we cannot get any help from them.
I think your conspiracy theory is good, but for me it works differently. I think Iran wants Syria to be the one who truly causes us to be friendless so when they have their turn we will be further weakened. So they are letting this play out. At first opportunity they will be there in the mix. But I really don't get why the Arab league of nations are not up in arms...they do not like him at all. My thought is they too, are watching it play out. Why? Maybe we pose a greater threat to them and their values. They *do* detest the West. We will not only be the aggressors we will have lost credibility with much of the world. With our economy and divisiveness, we will be at our weakest, as a nation.
@brice You are right, there will be serious detractors anyway.
US doesn't need boots on the ground to destroy Iran and/or Syria. The air power is more then capable of doing that but you are looking at a lot of human loss.
Brice, you are so right when you say someone will be displeased regardless. Gosh, my thoughts here are all over the place, so bear with me.
First off, North Korea and Iran. There is no question that Iran at least is behind Assad. I suspect China and Russia will ultimately stay out of it, but Iran - I wouldn't put anything past the lunatics in charge there. So I have to wonder (ok, here comes the cospiracy theorist in me) it that isn't precisecly the reason Assad has done what he did, despite the warning from the US. And that is why I worry about the US moving too quickly, without UN support and as part of a coalition. Your military has to be weakened after 10 years in Iraq and Afghanistan. And public support also doesn't seem to be there with the US population (maybe I'm wrong?) Can the US engage Syria and Iran on it's own? Now, no question that if Iran got involved you would see increased support for the US from other countries, but how long does it take to get organized? See what I am saying. That is part of why I think slowing down and increasing pressure on the UN, plus handing Russia undisputable proof (it must exist) that this was Assad. Russia wouldn't have any option but to sanction this. That would make me feel better.
I hope I make sense. I certainly don't pretend to know, or even think I know more then those making those decisions, but again, I wonder if this isn't hasty. All the big wigs seem to think that taking time before a strike won't hurt, so maybe the UN and other nations will come around with the appropriate evidence and intelligence?
First off, North Korea and Iran. There is no question that Iran at least is behind Assad. I suspect China and Russia will ultimately stay out of it, but Iran - I wouldn't put anything past the lunatics in charge there. So I have to wonder (ok, here comes the cospiracy theorist in me) it that isn't precisecly the reason Assad has done what he did, despite the warning from the US. And that is why I worry about the US moving too quickly, without UN support and as part of a coalition. Your military has to be weakened after 10 years in Iraq and Afghanistan. And public support also doesn't seem to be there with the US population (maybe I'm wrong?) Can the US engage Syria and Iran on it's own? Now, no question that if Iran got involved you would see increased support for the US from other countries, but how long does it take to get organized? See what I am saying. That is part of why I think slowing down and increasing pressure on the UN, plus handing Russia undisputable proof (it must exist) that this was Assad. Russia wouldn't have any option but to sanction this. That would make me feel better.
I hope I make sense. I certainly don't pretend to know, or even think I know more then those making those decisions, but again, I wonder if this isn't hasty. All the big wigs seem to think that taking time before a strike won't hurt, so maybe the UN and other nations will come around with the appropriate evidence and intelligence?
President can't pass a budget, he never attempted to get the Republicans in on talks of it.
"What message would this send to other regimes, and I am thinking like you of Iran and North Korea? "
We've tooled around in Iran before. Didn't accomplish a whole heck of a lot considering they are still wacko and still sticking tongue out at the west. The deal with that entire region is, they've been at war with themselves since we began to pay attention to time. As time elapsed, the weapons changed.
North Korea... one of the worlds biggest armed forces expenditures, if not the biggest. Their leader is nuttier than squirrel poop. So nutty in fact that he struck up a friendship with Dennis Rodman. Nobody knows what this guy is up to including himself, I'm afraid.
Whether or not we do something, someone is going to be displeased with whatever we do. Someone is going to wonder why we didn't step in to their civil war and right the wrongs committed there.
We've tooled around in Iran before. Didn't accomplish a whole heck of a lot considering they are still wacko and still sticking tongue out at the west. The deal with that entire region is, they've been at war with themselves since we began to pay attention to time. As time elapsed, the weapons changed.
North Korea... one of the worlds biggest armed forces expenditures, if not the biggest. Their leader is nuttier than squirrel poop. So nutty in fact that he struck up a friendship with Dennis Rodman. Nobody knows what this guy is up to including himself, I'm afraid.
Whether or not we do something, someone is going to be displeased with whatever we do. Someone is going to wonder why we didn't step in to their civil war and right the wrongs committed there.
http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Obama-on-Syria-response-Intl-communitys-credibility-is-on-the-line-not-mine-325291
"My credibility is not on the line. The international community's credibility is on the line," Obama told a news conference in Sweden.
"America and Congress' credibility is on the line, because we give lip service to the notion that these international norms are important," Obama added.
Meanwhile, Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Wednesday the US Congress had no right to approve the use of force against Syria without a decision from the UN Security Council, and that doing so would be an "act of aggression".
Putin also accused US Secretary of State John Kerry of lying to Congress about the militant group al-Qaida's role in the Syrian conflict when seeking the approval of US legislators for military action against Syria's government.
Putin also said on Wednesday that Russia did not rule out approving a military operation in Syria if clear evidence showed Damascus had carried out chemical weapons attacks, but said any attack would be illegal without UN support.
Putin is wrong, there is documented evidence. He just cannot admit it now,imo. He did suspend a shipment load of missiles to Syria,so he may be getting close.
----------------------------------------------------------
More links on those supporting an air strike.
Turkey warns on Syrian refugees if no response to chemical attack
By REUTERS
GENEVA - The Syrian refugee crisis may worsen if there is no international reaction in response to the alleged chemical weapons attack last month, Turkey's Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutolu said on Wednesday.
"If the same trend continues... and there is no international reaction to it, we are scared neighboring countries face much bigger numbers of refugees," he said at a news conference in Geneva.
French PM: Failing to act in Syria would send Iran wrong message
By REUTERS
09/04/2013 17:31
Select Language▼
PARIS - France's Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault said on Wednesday if there was no response to the chemical attack in Syria it risked sending Iran the wrong message on its nuclear program.
"To not act would be to put in danger peace and security in the entire region. What credibility would our international commitments against non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction including nuclear weapons stand for?" Ayrault told a parliamentary debate on Syria.
"What message would this send to other regimes, and I am thinking like you of Iran and North Korea? The message would be clear: You can continue." Iran rejects Western accusations that it is seeking to build the atomic bomb
Opec supports the airstrike plan- Mideastern oil cartel, hmmmm.
Looks ominous but it is only Saudi Arabia who have tribal issues with Assad. They really need to get in the front of this-it is their region and they still have great wealth.
Anyway, just saying the U.S. would not be the lone ranger here.
"My credibility is not on the line. The international community's credibility is on the line," Obama told a news conference in Sweden.
"America and Congress' credibility is on the line, because we give lip service to the notion that these international norms are important," Obama added.
Meanwhile, Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Wednesday the US Congress had no right to approve the use of force against Syria without a decision from the UN Security Council, and that doing so would be an "act of aggression".
Putin also accused US Secretary of State John Kerry of lying to Congress about the militant group al-Qaida's role in the Syrian conflict when seeking the approval of US legislators for military action against Syria's government.
Putin also said on Wednesday that Russia did not rule out approving a military operation in Syria if clear evidence showed Damascus had carried out chemical weapons attacks, but said any attack would be illegal without UN support.
Putin is wrong, there is documented evidence. He just cannot admit it now,imo. He did suspend a shipment load of missiles to Syria,so he may be getting close.
----------------------------------------------------------
More links on those supporting an air strike.
Turkey warns on Syrian refugees if no response to chemical attack
By REUTERS
GENEVA - The Syrian refugee crisis may worsen if there is no international reaction in response to the alleged chemical weapons attack last month, Turkey's Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutolu said on Wednesday.
"If the same trend continues... and there is no international reaction to it, we are scared neighboring countries face much bigger numbers of refugees," he said at a news conference in Geneva.
French PM: Failing to act in Syria would send Iran wrong message
By REUTERS
09/04/2013 17:31
Select Language▼
PARIS - France's Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault said on Wednesday if there was no response to the chemical attack in Syria it risked sending Iran the wrong message on its nuclear program.
"To not act would be to put in danger peace and security in the entire region. What credibility would our international commitments against non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction including nuclear weapons stand for?" Ayrault told a parliamentary debate on Syria.
"What message would this send to other regimes, and I am thinking like you of Iran and North Korea? The message would be clear: You can continue." Iran rejects Western accusations that it is seeking to build the atomic bomb
Opec supports the airstrike plan- Mideastern oil cartel, hmmmm.
Looks ominous but it is only Saudi Arabia who have tribal issues with Assad. They really need to get in the front of this-it is their region and they still have great wealth.
Anyway, just saying the U.S. would not be the lone ranger here.
A budget is now a "crazy leftist idea"?
lol
lol
Congress makes the laws not the President. And Bush was not trying to pass through wild leftist ideas.
Okay, I hear you. I was so busy dissing Bush I never thought it was undermining him. It seemed as natural as breathing. :)
What Bush didn't have was a Congress who refused to cooperate on *anything* with him.
What Bush didn't have was a Congress who refused to cooperate on *anything* with him.
" So Obama gets his 90 days, limited to air strikes. Then, God forbid, Assad hits Israel, or retaliates in some other way. Then what?"
Assad *will* hit Israel if not sooner then later, but they don't want this to be about Israel and I agree with that because Israelis are no more important then any other human beings and we are talking about innocent Syrian civilians.
" As I said, the situation is horrible, but I do worry this will make things worse. Assad knew the US had threatened action if these weapons were used, yet he did it anyway. Why, and who does he have behind him? "
Assad did hold back, but with everyone on his side he can continuously test the waters.
He has Russia and China,lol.
They are far from credible "good guys" but they are powerful and I must say our President has some real %^&$ to face them down.
Assad did delay using the gas but he will constantly test the U.S. especially knowing how unpopular the idea is in our country and the world.
No question there is intelligence most of us don't know, but there supposedly was in Iraq as well. I have always liked Obama, and for the most part still do, but I still haven't seen or read anything that makes me think this will end either quickly, or without a full scale invasion.
___________________________________________________
This is also a reason that I do not watch TV I really hate the way politicians manipulate us. Despite my hopes that the Syrian ppl can get some relief, I cannot listen to Biden or Kerry crying indignantly about "weapons of mass destruction being used on his own people. It is fare too reminiscent of Iraq and that terrible terrible travesty.
I do not trust these slick speakers whatever their party. Show me a politician who was an authentic human being and I will show you the tooth fairy.
But I do digress...
About 'intelligence' I really believe they have the evidence they need in order to proceed with such a risk.
My son, his wife and his three babies were fitted with masks recently.
I am scared too, Adgal. For all the innocents of the region and for the entire world.
Assad *will* hit Israel if not sooner then later, but they don't want this to be about Israel and I agree with that because Israelis are no more important then any other human beings and we are talking about innocent Syrian civilians.
" As I said, the situation is horrible, but I do worry this will make things worse. Assad knew the US had threatened action if these weapons were used, yet he did it anyway. Why, and who does he have behind him? "
Assad did hold back, but with everyone on his side he can continuously test the waters.
He has Russia and China,lol.
They are far from credible "good guys" but they are powerful and I must say our President has some real %^&$ to face them down.
Assad did delay using the gas but he will constantly test the U.S. especially knowing how unpopular the idea is in our country and the world.
No question there is intelligence most of us don't know, but there supposedly was in Iraq as well. I have always liked Obama, and for the most part still do, but I still haven't seen or read anything that makes me think this will end either quickly, or without a full scale invasion.
___________________________________________________
This is also a reason that I do not watch TV I really hate the way politicians manipulate us. Despite my hopes that the Syrian ppl can get some relief, I cannot listen to Biden or Kerry crying indignantly about "weapons of mass destruction being used on his own people. It is fare too reminiscent of Iraq and that terrible terrible travesty.
I do not trust these slick speakers whatever their party. Show me a politician who was an authentic human being and I will show you the tooth fairy.
But I do digress...
About 'intelligence' I really believe they have the evidence they need in order to proceed with such a risk.
My son, his wife and his three babies were fitted with masks recently.
I am scared too, Adgal. For all the innocents of the region and for the entire world.
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.
You are reading content posted in the Current Events . . . Group
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
